What referendum? We're closer to a general election.
He's painted himself into a corner on divorce and given the Nationalist Party an open advantage.
Both political parties are so damned keen to wash their hands of responsibility for divorce legislation, because they’re not too certain where their electorate’s sympathies lie, that they have failed to factor in the reality that indecision, too, leads to loss of electoral support.
We elect our legislators to legislate. We do not elect them to do the easy bits and refer the tough bits back to us midstream. A referendum on divorce will derail the country for a year or two, consume time and resources that we cannot afford, and disturb our serenity. it is bad news for the economy and bad news for our peace of mind.
We don’t need the strain of a referendum, followed immediately by the strain of a general election. What is Pullicino Orlando claiming here – that we’re going to have a referendum in 2011/2012 and a general election in 2013?
If the government and the opposition think that a referendum is a good idea, then they are both quite insane. Insane, and irresponsible.
But fortunately, I can read between the lines of what people say and write, and in this case I’m not jumping to conclusions based on hearing what I want to hear, like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who announced that there would be a referendum next year while the prime minister’s office responded that there was no such talk.
The Times this morning got in touch with the Office of the Prime Minister:
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said a meeting had taken place and divorce was discussed but did not confirm that a referendum would be held next year. However, the spokesman added: “The Prime Minister has already stated in the past weeks the decision should be taken by the electorate.”
I’ve just read what the prime minister has said on several occasions about this, and I have noticed that he has not at any point mentioned the word ‘referendum’. He has spoken only, as the spokesman said above, about the decision being taken by the electorate. I might have missed any such reference to a referendum, but then again, I might not.
To me and to any clear-seeing person who takes words to mean exactly what they do, THE DECISION MUST BE TAKEN BY THE ELECTORATE doesn’t necessarily mean a referendum, and in this situation, two years before a general election, it almost certainly does not. It is more likely to mean a general election.
This is commonsense. It makes no sense at all to get the electorate to vote on divorce in a referendum in 2012 when you can put it in your electoral programme and get them to vote on it in 2013. Divorce is not EU membership.
If the government and the Opposition decide to cooperate on a referendum, or if the government takes this decision unitlaterally as is its right and privilege, then it will be for one reason only:
THE LABOUR PARTY AND THE NATIONALIST PARTY ARE TOO BLOODY GUTLESS TO TAKE A POSITION ON DIVORCE AND WRITE THAT POSITION INTO THEIR ELECTORAL PROGRAMME OF 2013. That’s all. Full stop.
For that alone, both parties would deserve our contempt. Either for or against, they have got to take a position. That is what they are there for.
Ideally, they would wake up to the real world, grow up and understand that this isn’t a matter of opinion but just something that has to be done because there is no alternative, as the rest of the world discovered long ago. And then they would both commit themselves, in their electoral programme, to legislation.
But that frigging idiot Muscat – the true political child of his predecessor Sant if ever there was one – has gone and painted himself into a corner at the outset by commiting himself to a free vote on divorce. By doing that, he has made it impossible for his party to include a commitment to divorce legislation in its 2013 electoral programme. The electoral programme commits the party as a whole, so a free vote is not an option. If you put something in your electoral programme, you have promised it to those who vote for you, and that commits every MP who is elected on your party ticket.
There can be no free vote where there is an electoral pledge, and where a free vote has been promised, an electoral pledge cannot follow.
Muscat’s stupidity (one of the main indicators of intelligence is the ability to foresee and preempt situations) is unbelievable. All the Nationalist Party has to do now to win the general election is commit itself to divorce legislation, something that the Labour Party, because of its leader’s foolish, repeated and loose-mouthed talk about a free vote, cannot do.
26 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Should divorce be introduced, only those wishing to divorce would do so.
[Daphne – Not really. You can be divorced without your consent by your spouse after two years of living at separate addresses.]
Also, having taken that option, the couple in question, would be divorced in the eyes of the state only, and be able to marry again through the state.
Those, who either through religious or moral (whatever you want to call it, it’s ok by me) conviction, do NOT have to divorce. Stay in your (perhaps loveless/abusive) marriage if it makes you feel better (and you think you’ll have a place in heaven guaranteed).
It makes no difference to me, or to anyone else who thinks divorce should be introduced. The Catholic church is also against divorce, and that’s fine. It’s their club, they can set the rules for their members anyway they wish. They can continue to refuse to re-marry anyone who is divorced.
Again, it’s their church, they set the rules. Why do they, and the crazies who think they are going to get a fast track to heaven, if they appear to be holier than though, need (man’s) laws to keep their conscience in check?
I’m so fed up with people like you, sitting there on your high-and-mighty throne thinking that you are better then someone else because your church tells you that divorce is bad!
If you are Roman Catholics who believe that you shouldn’t get divorced then make sure your children never marry somebody who will make them miserable. But nobody can see the future; we just take calculated risks.
Do what you please and don’t divorce, but do mind your own business when it comes to the rest of us. I believe in God but I don’t believe in people going on about marriage and what a marriage is when they have never had an intimate relationship themselves.
I believe that every country has got its own rules regarding divorce. In Italy you could file for a divorce after three years from the separation by court.
Oooops! And this is what happened to Joseph’s guarantee about BP’s deep water drilling in Libya. He was short-sighted there as well.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/world/bp-in-our-backyard-oil-company-to-close-its-independent-watchdog-as-employee-concerns-soa
Spot on, as usual. But I am sorry to say, much as this may look like political astuteness from the PM’s angle, to many this talk of “the decision should be taken by the electorate.” is a typical example of the type of weasel words we have come to expect from government. It certainly does not inspire confidence.
1. I think the subject of divorce must not be politicised. It was Joseph who tried to make it political by promoting it as one of his “progressive” moves and proposing a free-vote IF HE IS PM, remember?
2. The PM would be very wise if he comes across clearly that he will not politicise divorce. This must be so because he has himself declared he is against it, but he knows that many in his party NEED it.
3. Although divorce is regarded as a civil right, it has to be (civil) society to accept it as such. I am not sure that fundamentally Catholic Malta recognises divorce as such.
4. The subject of divorce is extremely politically sensitive in a fundamentally Catholic country like Malta because it tears apart one’s religious beliefs, based on the Church’s teachings, and one’s obligations in a lay civil society.
5. Therefore, I see nothing wrong that the PM may decide to have a vote in Parliament and then put the law for the approval of the electorate. This would be right because the electorate did not vote on the subject the last time round.
6. In the circumstances, I see nothing wrong with a referendum taking place, nor with its timing in 2011, if the subject is NOT politicised, and if civil society is given enough freedom to debate the subject.
7. Still, to me, there are still a few important questions which remain unanswered, which perhaps Lou Bondi will kindly ask next Monday.
What position will Dr. Gonzi and his Government take in connection with JPO’s bill when this is brought for discussion in Parliament? I think he can now say the Party was studying the proposals, and debating internally, but they cannot go on with this forever.
Will the PN go for a free vote of its MPs?
Will they vote for or against it if they act as a group?
And if the vote of the Parliament is a No, where do we go from there? Should the law be scrapped at that point?
In fact, anyone proposing a vote in Parliament FOLLOWED BY an electoral decision is pre-supposing that the Parliament has voted Yes. I cannot see how a law that failed in Parliament can be proposed to the electorate.
I can see where your reasoning stems from and agree with certain points however it’s too late for many – the issue is intrinsically politicised because both parties are afraid of losing votes in the context of having an unelected church which has and will continue to exercise undue influence by threatening everybody spiritually. They’re both trying to kick the ball out of their court with a ‘let the electorate choose’ or a ‘free vote’ (the latter makes me convulse uncontrollably).
We’re not debating whether married couples should break up. That’s been happening for eons. The question here is about the right to dissolution of marriage and access to the rest of the family rights. Civil rights are human rights, universal, precise and legally defined. There’s no need to waste time and money on a referendum. You either provide rights like the rest of the world or you’re the bastard child of Robert Mugabe.
Dissolution of marriage as a civil right is not disconnected from the suit of family rights. Furthermore in practical terms the situation in Malta is that you simply cannot remarry. Those who are happy with the one-chance-to-happiness-game over model are free to continue adhering to it. No one seems to think of the benefits of re-marriage to those children born to separated couples.
So, the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that the decision should be take by the people. Yes, this does not mean, in itself, a referendum.
BUT putting divorce on the PN’s electoral programme would make divorce the one and only issue in the election. Which would make the election, in effect, a referendum on divorce.
Just as the 2003 election was actually a repeat of the previous month’s EU referendum. The PN knows that it cannot possibly win an election just by campaigning for divorce. It knows it would lose a lot of its core voters. Not ALL voters share the same opinions of certain PN columnists and TV presenters.
What remains is, therefore, a referendum. The announcement will be made next Monday on Bondi+. Don’t we know the script by heart?
“Public opinion will back Joseph Muscat’s call for responsible divorce that puts the interests of children first.”
That is the only sentence that Maltastar managed to write about Joseph Muscat’s plan to tackle the divorce issue. Plan is too grand a word. The rest of the article is a whole diatribe against the government.
When there is a free vote in parliament, I presume the voting will be public. I imagine many MPs are worrying more about how to vote to attract more voters rather than what’s best for Malta.
Am I the only one who thinks there is an element of partisan calculation in this?
A referendum would be a huge headache for Joseph Muscat as it would reveal deep splits in his party on this issue. Maybe this is exactly what the PM and his advisers would like to achieve (at a great cost to the unity of the PN, I hasten to add).
And settling the issue before the election would blow away whatever advantage JM might obtain through his promised bill.
[Daphne – I doubt the existence of any such expensive and devious machinations. The juice, put simply, wouldn’t be worth the squeeze.]
I do not agree that the divorce issue has to be decided by a referendum and I think that there are more than a few who feel the same way. So what happens if we don’t vote in the referendum?
Myriam, if you don’t vote in the referendum the decision will be taken by those who do vote.
Myriam, You can count on Alfred Sant to answer your question.
Seeing that Joseph Muscat was a member of the party who took the non-voters in the EU referendum as being against Malta forming part of the EU …
After this article, will the pijpil still say that you attack only the Labour Party and forgive everything done by Gonzi PiEnn?
Adrian, yes they will actually, such is their hatred for this blog and its author.
I fully subscribe to the views in this article. However, even if the word “referendum” was not mentioned in the talks, it seems almost everyone has now accepted the idea of a referendum without givng it much thought.
To my mind, not even the PM is sure yet how to go about it but he may find it more conducive to his anti-divorce stance to hold a referendum as it is easier to sway public opinion than it is to control MPs of both sides.
Divorce will never be introduced unless EU imposes on the government.
Which is the political party thathas guts to introduce divorce?
In the past the Labour Party had the guts to fight the Roman Catholic Church and still no one ever mentioned divorce.
In the past it wasn’t the Labour Party taking on the Church. It was Dom Mintoff squabbling with Michael Gonzi – a personal feud – and they both dragged their respective tribes into it.
How sad when there are educated people out there who don’t realise what a referendum means.
Firstly, the significant cost in time and money if not combined with another national event such as an election or the issuing of new ID cards. There is the need to seriously evaluate opportunity costs when proposing something of this sort.
Secondly, referendum questions are just like survey questions, they can be drafted by skilled persons to encourage the type of answer wanted by the proposer – dishonest yes, but it happens all the time. Only if the questions are drafted by a truly independent professional will a fair result be obtained, any other way will skew the results.
Thirdly, referendums are used to obtain decisions on matters that will affect all the population, EU membership was a case in point. Divorce is a minority matter most of the population will not ever come in contact with.
Finally, how can the population decide on such a matter when there is practically no information out there to evaluate it on. The dogmatic way the Roman Catholic Church and other interested parties are defending their position is not creating awareness of the true strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that may result from such legislation
The prime minister should, as a good politician, put divorce for discussion before parliament NOW – a government has to cater for ALL the citizens, even if some are in a minority.
By doing this, he would remove a lot of uncertainty that there is at present and will emerge as a most honest politician and not just a runner-after of votes.
(If the government and the opposition think that a referendum is a good idea, then they are both quite insane. Insane, and irresponsible) One of the best sentences that a good journalist can write 100%
I think fully-formed adults agree that the breakdown of a marriage is instrinsically a no-win situation for all parties involved and that it would be a much better world if couples made their vows, didn’t change or grow in divergent paths throughout their lives or not grow at all, weren’t physically or emotionally abused, let down and compomised by the spouse who promised to love and honour them.
Unfortunately, real life is not so and sometimes, after much soul and conscience searching and persistent attempts to hold things together, some decide to bring things to a head – or have that decision made for them.
Thankfully, there are many lifelong partnerships and the church in Malta should carry on honing it’s attempts at providing up-to-date preparation for marriage and counselling partnerships in difficulty.
A referendum would absolve the major political parties in Malta from the responsibility of making decisions which may conflict with one’s religious beliefs and/or propensity to win the next election (shades of Pontius Pilate?) However, the needs of minorities in society must not be ignored. Both parties should bear in mind that they have a duty to take an impartial stand, debate and legislate and provide the right legal framework to prevent social injustice.
It is then be up to the individual to decide on his moral choice – and not for the rest of the rock to pass judgment!
A true democracy is one that protects the rights of minority groups and individuals, as long as these rights to not violate or infringe upon the rights of others.
Divorce is a CHOICE and the right of the individual, and not a matter that should be put to a referendum. What if a referendum had to be held on banning Catholicism in Malta, and the majority were in favour?
Imagine the outcry from adherents to the Catholic faith, and rightly so. Whether they worship or who they choose to worship is their right.
The real issue here is not whether one has the right to divorce or not, but whether one has the right to impose his moral or religious views on others. About time that Malta had a secular government that protected the rights of all, regardless of religion. No doubt we all appreciate the right we ought to have, to make our own choices.
Now let’s bear one thing in mind. The main and possibly only reason why the Maltese happen to be Catholics is because we were born in a Catholic country to Catholic parents who baptized us into the Catholice faith at birth. Had we been born in Israel we would most likely belong to the Jewish faith.
Had we been born in Pakistan or the Middle East we would have been Muslims, and so on. We did not choose to be born in Malta. We did not choose whether to have Catholic parents or whether to be baptized at birth.
We did not even bother to research the origin of our beliefs and the beliefs of others, so that we could make an intelligent and informed choice about our religion. If a Jehovah’s Witness knocked on our door armed only with a bible, how many of us could defend our Catholic beliefs which are based on the bible?
The point I am making here is that we still have a right to be and believe what we want to be, whether we chose to be ignorant or not. It’s our choice and we have a right to it.
But for a few moments, let’s not concern ourselves with either religion or the anti divorce lobby who try to rob others of their rights. I am here appealing to those of you who want your rights protected regardless of whether you make up a majority or minority of the population.
Many of you here condemn the gutless and hypocritical politicians who prefer to dodge the issue of divorce, either because it suits them or because they do not wish to associate themselves with an ideal that is contrary to their personal religious views.
It must therefore be fair to assume that none of us pro divorce people would like to associate ourselves with these narrow minded, unjust, hypocritical and cowardly traits.
That being the case, let us spare a thought for gay people. I myself am an extremely happily married person who loves my wife with a vengeance. I have never been divorced and cannot imagine it ever happening to me. I am also neither religious nor am I gay. That’s me.
Had I been gay, or had I been divorced or a staunch Catholic I would have been equally proud of who I was. But gay people have no choice. They are born that way. They do not hurt anyone or infringe upon others rights.
In fact, because of their situation, they are most tolerant towards those who are different, and least likely to be critical of others and the choices they make. Yet, in this day and age, they are still reproached and villifed, simply because they are different and because they are a minority.
Perhaps you could justifiably argue that if homosexuality were the norm, then it would be the heterosexual minority who would be on the recieving end. The point I am trying to make here, is that we need to become a tolerant society. For too long the Maltese on the whole, thrive on gossip, and have not learnt to mind their own business.
Next time somebody wants to be critical of someone else because they are different, let’s not get involved. I personally had a friend many years ago whose son was gay and had committed suicide. He had left behind a note to his father who was embarrassed about it and never accepted his son’s situation. The son could never understand why his father, who had loved him so much as he grew up, had now disowned him, because of the way he turned out.
And remember the son had no choice in the matter. In time the father too committed suicide as he could not endure his guilt. Below is a plea, in her own words, by an aquaintance of mine who is gay and who is gutsy enough to stand up and fight. Good on you Siona. I am with you all the way.
SIONA SULTANA: 1 in 10 people born are gay. That means 1 of every 10 people is instantly put down, given bad labels, left alone, put in a minority, and so much else…all for something they didn’t ask for. Many gay teens are going to commit suicide as a way of escaping. If you want to tell them life will get ……better, and you res…pect them for who they are, copy and paste this. Most of you won’t, but let’s see the 5% who will.
My marriage was annulled. My ex wife remarried. I can remarry too if I want to. So?